Emerging research suggests that biological relatedness contributes to differential treatment between children being raised by kin and the biological children in the caregiver’s household. This potential concern may be elevated especially when household resources are stretched thin. For this study conducted in and near Kampala, Uganda, 518 youth (8 to 18 years old) and their caregivers were interviewed individually, examining the association between relatedness and perceived food and work equity, and school attendance. The households were selected through purposive sampling as a component of a program evaluation being conducted for a community based NGO providing family preservation services to households at risk of disintegration. The authors review the literature on kinship care, with a particular focus on Sub-Saharan Africa where it is widely utilized, both for purposes of training a child or lending support to a relative (purposive or voluntary fostering), and in times of crisis in the parental household (crisis or involuntary fostering). Both types of care are typically arranged informally between relatives, with little or no supervision by authorities. Research shows that kinship care in that sub-region has increased dramatically in the past two decades due to AIDS, and the resulting orphan crisis has stretched the traditional safety net of kin care to breaking point, with limited resources in those households becoming even further stretched. With fewer resources available, the concern is that kin caregivers may exercise unequal distribution of resources between their biological children and other children in their care, a phenomenon, known as “Hamilton’s Rule”.
In line with previous research findings, the study found that grandparents are caring for the majority of children who do not live with their biological parents (69%) compared with only about 18% living with aunts and uncles. The study also builds upon previous research that children living with grandparents do not tend to perceive intra-household discrimination but also demonstrates that many grandparent-led households experience extreme poverty. Household income, but not relatedness, was negatively associated with food inequity. However, relatedness was positively associated with perceived disparity in the distribution of work among children living in the household, and with children’s school attendance. The authors discuss the possible reasons behind this disparity in workloads and suggest that requiring kin children to work more than biological children might be a part of the reciprocity equation for struggling kin caregivers, and might reflect embedded cultural values and practice. It is possible that the children themselves might feel an obligation or responsibility to perform additional work in exchange for their care, and take pride in “doing their part.
They point out that, whatever the reason, this may produce a sense of intra-household discrimination, and impact a child’s educational outcomes if sufficient time is not allotted for attending school or completing homework. It may also affect the child’s psychological health and sense of wellbeing if the increased workload is equated with being relegated to a lower status within the family. The authors recommend more in-depth research to understand this dynamic better but also call on community programs addressing families providing kinship care to work to reduce unfair treatment through raising awareness and increasing opportunities for caregivers and children to share their experiences and access support when needed.
The abstract of this paper is available for free by clicking the link above. To access the full publication, please contact BCN or use your institutional access.
©International Journal of Social Welfare, 23 (2), 205-214